How do you perceive Tom Bombadil?

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

I'd say he's good in the sense of being helpful, benign, tolerant, but not Good if that means being a party in the war of Good vs Evil. In my eyes he's the only true pacifist in the story. I can't imagine him ever wielding a weapon, unlike Gandalf - nor does he need one, "for his songs are stronger songs, and his feet are faster." This aversion to violence distinguishes him from Treebeard and the other Ents, who are otherwise the only characters remotely comparable to him in that they have their own agenda and feel that nobody's quite on their side.

I like that you call him "the anti-Gandalf" - I see them both as polar opposites, extrovert Gandalf and introvert Tom, and as very much akin in the respect and friendliness they show all living things; two sides of a coin, in a way.

I think you are both right about the concept of Tom Bombadil. His character is described in that way. But there's one thing I find curious about his role in the story. Which is that he has a role in in the story.

There's sort of a clash between the idea, or concept, of Tom Bombadil at its core and the very basic necessity for him to take part in the story after all. On the one Hand he is described as this passive, neutral and jolly fellow who refrains from the use of power over beings and things all together. I always figured that this is why the Ring has no power over him, because he himself has truly rejected the notion of power. But on the other Hand he has to (from a literary point of view) interact with the Hobbits and the ongoing storyline. And he does so in rather counterintuitive (in regards to the idea of his character) ways, in my opinion. He uses force and power to help the Hobbits in crucial situations. He may be very cautious and gentle about it, i. e. mostly just singing some funky tunes, but he does dominate the will and mind of other (more or less) conscious beings if necessary. He does take a stand and a clear side. Obviously, he does so for a good and justified reason but I feel like that this does undermine the idea behind his character in some way. And to be clear, I don't fault Tolkien for that. He handled this discrepancy rather elegantly.

I think it's more of a structural problem, if that makes sense. It's kind of a conundrum.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Leaf

There's sort of a clash between the idea, or concept, of Tom Bombadil at its core and the very basic necessity for him to take part in the story after all.

Tolkien addressed that in Letters #144:

Tom Bombadil is not an important person-to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment'...I would not...have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom against compulsion that has long lost any desire save mere power, and so on; but both sides...want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless.

So what you say about the Ring not affecting Tom because he has no desire for power is right. That aligns with Gandalf's remarks to the Council, that Bombadil "is his own master"; that is, power and domination, the Ring's powers and its tools, are unable to gain a foothold in his mind because there is no means of connecting to kindred thoughts within him.

Originally Posted by Leaf

He does take a stand and a clear side. Obviously, he does so for a good and justified reason but I feel like that this does undermine the idea behind his character in some way. And to be clear, I don't fault Tolkien for that. I think it's more of a structural problem, if that makes sense. It's kind of a conundrum.

Being in the story, for whatever metaphysical reason, he must either aid Frodo or thwart him. Ignoring the plight of the Hobbits would have been a choice as well: a choice against the Good that Frodo served. I think Bombadil had existed in Middle-earth completely out of the histories, unknown even to most of the Elves. The few who knew of him didn't know what he was, or his purpose. Gandalf apparently did know, and his knowledge had to have come with him from the West. Tom, I think, knew that one day he would have his part to play in the greater history, but he only stepped into the story for as brief a time as was absolutely necessary.\, just long enough to get Frodo out of the Old Forest and the Downs.

[Leaf]

Thanks for that quote!

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Being in the story, for whatever metaphysical reason, he must either aid Frodo or thwart him. Ignoring the plight of the Hobbits would have been a choice as well: a choice against the Good that Frodo served.

That is very true for the logic within the given situation of the story. But Tolkien constructed this situation in that way. Without Old Man Willow or a mean Barrow-Wight, there would be no need for Bombadil to make this call.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Tom, I think, knew that one day he would have his part to play in the greater history, but he only stepped into the story for as brief a time as was absolutely necessary.\, just long enough to get Frodo out of the Old Forest and the Downs.

So it seems to me that even if you have "renounced control [...] and the means of power" (as Tolkien puts it) there comes a time when this concept (or philosophy) reaches its limit.

[Arvegil145]

To me, at least, the entire "Bombadil chapters" sound like Gandalf put some bad weed to Tom and Goldberry In any case, the chapters about Bombadil, Old Man Willow and the Barrow-wights seem to me like a very elaborate LSD trip.

Not that I don't like that.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

To me, at least, the entire "Bombadil chapters" sound like Gandalf put some bad weed to Tom and Goldberry In any case, the chapters about Bombadil, Old Man Willow and the Barrow-wights seem to me like a very elaborate LSD trip.

The Sixties beat you to that idea.

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The Sixties beat you to that idea.

Alas! that I missed the sixties.

Turning to the three chapters dealing with Tom in the FOTR, I enjoyed them very much (unlike many others who did not find them as pleasant as I did) and their air and otherworldly feeling was a delight to myself.

[Faramir Jones]

You beat me to the Bored of the Rings reference, Inziladun!

I've been thinking back to when I first read LotR, and who or what I thought Tom Bombadil and Goldberry were. Trying to recollect, I wasn't sure then who or what they were, and didn't mind at the time, having met in that book all kinds of strange beings.

Soon after, I read Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle Earth, with its suggestion that Bombadil was a Maia 'gone native', like Radagast. While I thought it interesting, I didn't accept it, on the grounds that while Gandalf, a Maia, was terrified of having anything to do with the One Ring due to the temptations it would offer him, that ring appeared to have no power over Bombadil.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Without Old Man Willow or a mean Barrow-Wight, there would be no need for Bombadil to make this call.

Yep, and Tolkien had to construct the situation in that way because he was writing this kind of story. Without obstacles on the way there would be no adventure. And since he was writing this kind of story, this was probably the only way he could bring Bombadil into it at all - as a helper in danger.

Originally Posted by Leaf

So it seems to me that even if you have "renounced control [...] and the means of power" (as Tolkien puts it) there comes a time when this concept (or philosophy) reaches its limit.

Yes. Being neutral, pacifist, non-combatant doesn't mean being a jerk and abandoning people in distress who need your help.

But I'd like to take a look at the kind of 'power' Tom uses at need. Here's what he says to Old Man Willow:

'You let them out again, Old Man Willow!' he said. 'What be you a-thinking of? You should not be waking. Eat earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep! Bombadil is talking!'

Basically, he reminds the willow that it's a tree and admonishes it to behave as behoves a tree instead of waylaying innocent wanderers - and because "Bombadil is talking", the willow obeys. So, is Tom's superpower ontologic authority? Because he is who he is, can he make other things be what they are?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Basically, he reminds the willow that it's a tree and admonishes it to behave as behoves a tree instead of waylaying innocent wanderers - and because "Bombadil is talking", the willow obeys. So, is Tom's superpower ontologic authority? Because he is who he is, can he make other things be what they are?

The Willow is clearly more than a mere tree, though. He's described as having a "grey thirsty spirit" that seems in line with Ents, or more closely, Huorns.
It obeys Bombadil because, at least in "the bounds that he has set" (to quote Gandalf), he is Master. I think he is allowed such power because he himself has set a limit on his influence. Tom wants to be left alone to pursue his own ends; he has no desire to extend his power to cover the "Free Peoples".
It's interesting that Tom tells the Hobbits:

'Tom is not master of Riders from the Black Land far beyond his country.'

(emphasis mine)

That suggests again that Tom is only so powerful in his own small place, and that was the way he wanted it.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

It obeys Bombadil because, at least in "the bounds that he has set" (to quote Gandalf), he is Master. I think he is allowed such power because he himself has set a limit on his influence. Tom wants to be left alone to pursue his own ends;[...]

What ends are those though?

It seems to me that his agenda resolves mostly around having a swell day in the forest, dancing, singing and picking up some lilies for his beautiful wife on his way home, when it's time for supper. And this is a fine lifestyle, don't get me wrong, but given his immortal and powerful nature one might call him an underachiever, of sorts.

Joking aside, that's the thing that separates Tom Bombadil from mythological beings, for example Ents or Wizards. And I like that theme because it subverts human expectations:

Usually those inherently powerful, immortal and supreme beings (especially in a mythological context, e.g. Homer's Odyssey) of course have nothing better to do than meddling with the matters of the mortals, shaking up their lives in the process. To conceive that there could be a supremely powerful being that doesn't want to expand it's authority and boss you around is, in a way, a narcissistic injury.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

And the fact that the Ring did not make him invisible is, to me at least, not that great a wonder. You have to remember that the Ring puts its wearer into the wraith world. And you also have to remember that the Elves, for example, live in both worlds - the visible and the invisible (wraith-like, for lack of a better word). So it is my opinion that if, say, an Elf put on the Ring he would not become invisible.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

To split hairs, it's important to note that the Elves who existed in both worlds simultaneously were only those who had been in the Blessed Realm: Glorfindel qualified, but the majority of the Silvan Elves of Mirkwood and Lórien likely wouldn't.

This discussion reminds me of discussions that occurred before 1981 as to Galadriel not being rendered invisible by wearing Nenya. In my memory the obvious solution was that Elves would be understood by Tolkien to have power over the invisibility that the Rings imposed and could be visible or invisible at will. Then in 1981 Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien was published and Tolkien’s solution, published in Letter 131 to Milton Waldman, first appeared (italics mine):

The Elves of Eregion made Three supremely beautiful and powerful rings, almost solely of their own imagination, and directed towards the preservation of beauty: they did not confer invisibility.

Suddenly a solution had been given that none, in my memory, had ever thought of before.

What would happen if an Elf or Maia or Vala put on one of the 17 Great Rings of Power? Would that Elf or Maia or Vala become invisible or gain the power to become invisible at will? Maybe. Or maybe not. Since Tolkien has written nothing, so far as I am aware, on this matter, others cannot know. Tolkien has not written even whether when Sauron put on the One Ring he automatically became invisible or whether he didn’t.

Dwarves, it is known, did not become invisible or eventually fade when they put on a Ring of Power which granted invisibility to Men and Hobbits. This might suggest to some that the same might be true of Elves. And what of beasts? What immediate effect would the Ring have on its possessor if the raven Röac son of Carc had learned of Bilbo’s Ring and seized it? Or if Treebeard had seized it. Or if the Ring had been placed around the branch of a tree. The only answer, I think, is: Who knows?

Originally Posted by Leaf

Usually those inherently powerful, immortal and supreme beings (especially in a mythological context, e.g. Homer's Odyssey) of course have nothing better to do than meddling with the matters of the mortals, shaking up their lives in the process. To conceive that there could be a supremely powerful being that doesn't want to expand it's authority and boss you around is, in a way, a narcissistic injury.

Very, very true. Yet Tom has often been compared to mythological beings like Nereus, the Norse satyr Miming in Saxo Grammaticus, the rural god Pan, and so forth. Such beings are pictured generally as living on their own or with their family and not interacting with mortals except when mortals force themselves upon them. They are not shown to want to boss any outsiders around.

Compare the cave of the nymphs in the thirteenth book of the Odyssey. These nymphs play no part in the tale of the Odyssey and are seemingly uninterested in what mortals or others are doing around then, save, I presume, when what others are doing affects themselves.

Then they might do something like afflict the countryside with a sea monster.

But what would happen if Farmer Maggot found his farm seized by trickery by someone like the Sackville-Baggins and asked Tom Bombadil for help? Would Tom do anything? Presumably Maggot’s farm is within the area of land beyond which Tom will not go, as he visits the farm in the poem The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. Would Tom have helped the Hobbits during the Scouring of the Shire if asked by Maggot, especially since part of the Shire and probably Buckland are within Tom’s territory? If Tom did help, nothing is said of it in The Lord of the Rings.

Some of the Bucklanders know of Tom in the poem The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. Yet Meriadoc Brandybuck seems to know nothing of him. Or perhaps Merry had heard tales of Tom before actually meeting him, but until then they were among the tales he had heard about the Old Forest which he did not believe.